Entertainment Blogs

An online journal about visual art, the urban landscape and design. Mary Louise Schumacher, the Journal Sentinel's art and architecture critic, leads the discussion and a community of writers contribute to the dialogue.

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

Hello everyone. A note to those of you responding to this post. I love comments but would like to foster thoughtful dialogue. I cannot insist upon it, but I would respectfully like to encourage those of you voicing potent ideas to stand behind your points of view by using your real names. Also, for the record, I do not publish comments that are petty, factually inaccurate or slanderous.

A generous gift indeed from Mary Nohl, whose art was mistaken for witchcraft. I think you have to understand the wider context of what we were trying to say in the 150 words we were given.

We mean no disrespect to the Nohl Foundation, of course, and I think the program is a wonderful one. Yes, we absolutely benefitted from, and appreciate, the money we received. But it's crucial to stress that you don't need to have that money to do what we do -- we want to encourage everyone to do what they can with what they have. To me, that's what was said, albeit in a shocking (and yes, classless) way. Donebestdone is "art" in some sense, but it's also a relationship to media practice. First, the money is appreciated so much because we GIVE OUR WORK AWAY FOR FREE on our website. We are not looking to capitalize, only to express. Second, we try hard to be a collective, be interactive, and express OURSELVES -- a liberatory practice in today's media-saturated landscape where YOU, Mary Louise, are the arts in this city. (BIG surprise that comments on your blog are moderated, by the way)

Everything that donebestdone has done to date has been fairly consistent, and I think the article in question is no different. It was unquestionably never intended to be taken seriously. Our work covers a whole spectrum of "seriousness" -- it tries to explore very complex ideas even as it actively pushes buttons and plays with our audience. Just because this is an article published in a weekly does not mean that we've stepped outside of the scope of our project. Donebestdone has made huge efforts to express ourselves without being frightened of how our work will be accepted by academics, journalists, or art curators; how our ideas will come across to the elderly or youth culture; what its political ramifications might be, and so on. We just do what we do in an effort to MAXIMIZE EFFECT. Our work is intense, frequently shocking or overwhelming, and not easy to define. For you to not see this effect at work as Milwaukee's major art writer disappoints me greatly.

Take a closer look at what we do. Of course the crude joke or instigatory comment is what gets the immediate reaction. We have utilized that tactic, but we are much more than that. Some never get beyond that. If they are not willing to look further into what we do and how we do it, to me they're just another passive consumer waiting for the mainstream media to force its notions down their throats. And they would not be interested in collaborating with us or appreciating our work.

To the point: We use whatever we can to make media which is not dogmatic "truth" but a multitude of vantage-points with a multitude of potential reactions. Your response represents perfectly the non-reflective gut reaction. Others have seen the novelty and freedom in what we're trying to accomplish, and I only hope that we can continue to be so honest and inspire independence.

"What I do, I do just for me" -Mary Nohl, as quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Dear Donebestdone, I'm grateful for your thoughtful reply and explanation of your art-making approach, which, I agree is sophisticated, provocative, generous and worthy of a Nohl grant. Do not mistake my criticism of your very public remark and particularly the use of the term "suckers" directed at those who gave you that grant as a dismissal of what you do as a whole. That would be an oversimplification, certainly. Explaining the intent -- and a good one, at that -- behind what by all reasonable interpretations was simply a rude comment is more than helpful.

Hi Mary Louise: I am having a hard time getting a password to your comments site. Would you be so kind as to post this comment under your Nohl Fellowship piece?

Yesterday I drove to the Kohler Museum in Sheboygan to see (again) the Sublime Spaces exhibit, and to re-visit the section occupied by artist Mary Nohl, who established The Nohl Fellowship. It was distressing to read the flip comments (posted today) from a former winner of the fellowship. Perhaps this story will show exactly how modest Ms. Nohl was, and how simply she lived:

"I have five very small piece made by Mary Nohl," said a friend who drove with me to the John Michael Kohler Museum. "Years ago, when I was working at Walker's Point Center for the Arts, I was told to go to the basement and clean out some boxes. The Director told me I could keep whatever I found. What I found were wonderful little ceramic dishes and containers, all signed by Ms. Nohl. I have them in my house where they are used on a daily basis."

The immodest chap who "blew off" the $5,000, would do well to consider what it means to devote one's life to art...in a modest and productive way.

It appears as though this column was written without ever taking the time to familiarize oneself with the artist's work. Is this why you replied to one of the member's comments much more respectfully? I think this question is just as valid as the question you asked, and in the larger scheme of the "art" world, a bit more interesting, and though-provoking, the kind of discussion you say you encourage. My closing statement, to append all that I have written previously that has been censored from this forum (through no fault of foul language, just an unapproved of opinion) is that I respect donebestdone much more than many of the other artistic groups in Milwaukee, for reasons such as what is presented above (retort above included).

I'd just like to weigh in as a friend and supporter of DoneBestDone. I agree that out of context and on the printed page that quote looks to be in very bad taste - which is too bad, because the sort of humor that's a real component of their work didn't have a chance to come through.

At any rate, unfortunate comment or no, I think DoneBestDone are a fine choice for this award, and though lack of money won't stop them, I have every confidence in their finding a useful purpose for what they received. I don't think the people behind the Nohl Fellowships have any reason to think they made anything but a good choice.

Waste of money? - that’s putting it mildly. I think this guy is a waste of oxygen and food.

Dumbbestdumb writes "All the work we have done to date has been fairly consistent...."

I couldn't agree more. It seems to me to be consistently on par with the artistic capacity of any garden-variety teenaged social outcast. I include for your consideration some ‘art’ from his website: http://www.donebestdone.com/media/drawings/my%20acceptance%20of%20other%20peoples%20hobbies.jpg

Even if this guy hates the Pack, or simply hates people who like the NFL - what does he hope to accomplish with this garbage?

Oh, that's right - apparently some art critics think it's worth $5 grand and an award. They couldn't have picked a classier guy to give it to.

I think what's most out of line regarding this article is the fact that you overstepped your bounds. And it's sad that most of the people commenting here aren't capable of doing research, or reading the entire article with comments. Also cute how mud slinging is fine as long as it's coming from your position, but anyone else calling you out is not acceptable.

Mary Louise Schumacher, you were obviously deeply offended by Mr. Vande Slunts comment. To Mr. Vande Slunt, I applaud you. From my experiences and enjoyment of Donebestdone's work I have learned that they are multi dementional artists. They use a multitude of instruments, electronics, and creativity to compose their version of art, which they have generously shared to the Milwukee community. One of the many aspects in their creativity is Humor (wether it be appropriate or not in today's politically correct world). Mrs. Schumacher, I highly encourage you to actually take the time to sit with the members of Donebestdone and learn about what it is they actually do, the time and effort it takes these talented individuals to make some of their projects, which, correct me if I am wrong, gives away their art for free. The comments made by Mr. Vande Slunt may come across as crude, but since when do artists have to be politically correct? I can only assume that it was a sarcastic remark made, but my question to you, Mrs Schumacher is this. Does Mr. Vande Slunt's sarcastic comment make Donebestdone's art any less art than it was prior to your interview with him? These are not paid artists, and out of their own enjoyment spend their hard earned dollars on equipment and a studio, who survive on not much more that Ramen noodles. Programs that they use to make some of their art does not run cheap, nor does a studial rental. However, non of that really matters.

I'm sure when you asked your question to Mr. Vande Slunt about the grant you were looking for a response that stated something on the order of "that the grant has helped them grow as artists etc etc...basically kissing up to those who have provided the grant, which again, was based off of their work, not their public speaking) I firmly believe that even if their grant money was spent on Dorritos and rent, which, I highly doubt it was, you have no business Mrs. Schumacher to be holding them accountable for their spendings. These individuals are a group of unpaid artists. Did you catch that part, unpaid? They are just as deserving of this grant as the next artist. And although Mr. Vande Slunts sarcastic comment may not have reflected their grattitude, believe me, they have been nothing more than thankful for it. That grant has helped pay off prior investments into their studio, their equipment, and allowed them to purchase new equipment. Just because he did not give you the response you are looking for, doesn't make them undeserving. It's kind of interesting how that transpires into the art world, but I guess you are standing to close to the painting to see the big picture.On closing, i would like to state that I absolutely love the quote placed on the response of jnanna. "What I do, I do just for me" -Mary Nohl, as quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwhat a perfectly fitting response to Ms. Schumacher's article.

E-mail Newsletter

Keep up with the art scene and trends in urban design with art and architecture critic Mary Louise Schumacher. Every week, you'll get the latest reviews, musings on architecture and her picks for what to do on the weekends.